HorrorMovieFans.com

showa58taro wrote:

Jmac Attack wrote:

Foo wrote:

Jmac Attack wrote:

Foo wrote:Let's start with fundamentals. If a person earns something and pays taxes on it, should they have the right to pass it on to their children?

Expand on this. This might actually go somewhere, lol

If you earn a dollar, and pay the appropriate tax on that dollar, should you be able to give it to your child? Let's say you build a bicycle with your child, but you are the legal owner, should your child have to pay taxes based on what a third party says it is worth in order to receive it?

No. If I am getting what you are saying.

Why should taxes and duties be waived because of familial relationships? You wouldn't do it in normal society. "It's cool, I don't have to pay taxes on all this money I'm transacting with someone else."

Because society values family. We recognize that the family situation is far more complex than buying a soda at the store.

We look after and care for each other in parent child relationships and it cycles where one takes care of the other in a healthy parent-child relationship. Often, accumulated assets are enabled by the efforts of the other. We often help with each other's homes, businesses, cars, etc.

Reign in Blood wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:Let's start with fundamentals. If a person earns something and pays taxes on it, should they have the right to pass it on to their children?

No.

ITT, Foo loves children, Seb hates them.

Foo loves spoiled brats. Seb loves children with character.

Also, language matters. Having a right is far more entrenched than handing out stuff to people. Also, implicit in Foo's question is not "can I leave my kids stuff" but rather "can I leave my kids stuff free of taxes."

If you've already paid taxes, why do the kids have to pay again?

A cowherder pays taxes on his cattle. He then sells it to a slaughterhouse who pay tax on that transaction. Then he sells it to Foo who pays him with taxes in situ. Finally Foo sells that epic tasty burger to a guy in Maryland, taxes once again paid in full. The fact that taxes were paid on the original cow by the cow-owner doesn't exempt Foo from paying taxes and charging taxes on his side of the transaction. That's how the tax system is set up and geared. Why is it suddenly that it should be waived "because it's my kids" when it is in effect a financial transaction.

Also, regardless of all of the above, I'm with Locke that you have the right to own property, not a right to get the property freely just because your daddy was rich. All these laws and taxes arose in direct response to the reality of the social contract we are all a part of, the main one being that wealth consolidation is a social ill, and the inheritance tax curbs it.

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Jmac Attack wrote:

Foo wrote:

Jmac Attack wrote:

Foo wrote:Let's start with fundamentals. If a person earns something and pays taxes on it, should they have the right to pass it on to their children?

Expand on this. This might actually go somewhere, lol

If you earn a dollar, and pay the appropriate tax on that dollar, should you be able to give it to your child? Let's say you build a bicycle with your child, but you are the legal owner, should your child have to pay taxes based on what a third party says it is worth in order to receive it?

No. If I am getting what you are saying.

Why should taxes and duties be waived because of familial relationships? You wouldn't do it in normal society. "It's cool, I don't have to pay taxes on all this money I'm transacting with someone else."

Because society values family. We recognize that the family situation is far more complex than buying a soda at the store.

We look after and care for each other in parent child relationships and it cycles where one takes care of the other in a healthy parent-child relationship. Often, accumulated assets are enabled by the efforts of the other. We often help with each other's homes, businesses, cars, etc.

And you pay taxes on those "helps" too. you don't get to waive the tax on a car because "it's for my son, man".

It should be noted, when you hear the horrible stories involving estate taxes, it is the family farms and small businesses. The super wealthy can avoid them easily with trusts and such.

Let me give a personal example. Let's say I have a child who is 18. I pass away in a battle with disease that dissolves my liquid assets. My child now owns Crave. Some assessor decides Crave is worth $1m because of revenues. My child must now sell Crave in order to pay the taxes or get a crippling loan.

Beyond the moral issues of taxing the child:

1. How much is losing my contribution impacting the value?
2. Who benefits in the long run when you take a running business paying taxes constantly and tear it apart to pay a one time tax?

Seb tax plan involves government going door to door Christmas morning to collect on value of gifts to children.

"Don't worry, you won't have to break your piggy bank. We brought a hammer to do it for you."

Foo wrote:It should be noted, when you hear the horrible stories involving estate taxes, it is the family farms and small businesses. The super wealthy can avoid them easily with trusts and such.

Let me give a personal example. Let's say I have a child who is 18. I pass away in a battle with disease that dissolves my liquid assets. My child now owns Crave. Some assessor decides Crave is worth $1m because of revenues. My child must now sell Crave in order to pay the taxes or get a crippling loan.

Beyond the moral issues of taxing the child:

1. How much is losing my contribution impacting the value?
2. Who benefits in the long run when you take a running business paying taxes constantly and tear it apart to pay a one time tax?

Then your child is being swindled, since the minimum value for the estate tax is $5.4M

Foo wrote:Seb tax plan involves government going door to door Christmas morning to collect on value of gifts to children.

"Don't worry, you won't have to break your piggy bank. We brought a hammer to do it for you."

It would be if the present was a stable full of ponies.

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:It should be noted, when you hear the horrible stories involving estate taxes, it is the family farms and small businesses. The super wealthy can avoid them easily with trusts and such.

Let me give a personal example. Let's say I have a child who is 18. I pass away in a battle with disease that dissolves my liquid assets. My child now owns Crave. Some assessor decides Crave is worth $1m because of revenues. My child must now sell Crave in order to pay the taxes or get a crippling loan.

Beyond the moral issues of taxing the child:

1. How much is losing my contribution impacting the value?
2. Who benefits in the long run when you take a running business paying taxes constantly and tear it apart to pay a one time tax?

Then your child is being swindled, since the minimum value for the estate tax is $5.4M

Which could easily be a small business or a family farm.

The amount should not matter. It is wrong no matter the amount.

showa58taro wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:Let's start with fundamentals. If a person earns something and pays taxes on it, should they have the right to pass it on to their children?

No.

ITT, Foo loves children, Seb hates them.

Foo loves spoiled brats. Seb loves children with character.

Also, language matters. Having a right is far more entrenched than handing out stuff to people. Also, implicit in Foo's question is not "can I leave my kids stuff" but rather "can I leave my kids stuff free of taxes."

If you've already paid taxes, why do the kids have to pay again?

A cowherder pays taxes on his cattle. He then sells it to a slaughterhouse who pay tax on that transaction. Then he sells it to Foo who pays him with taxes in situ. Finally Foo sells that epic tasty burger to a guy in Maryland, taxes once again paid in full. The fact that taxes were paid on the original cow by the cow-owner doesn't exempt Foo from paying taxes and charging taxes on his side of the transaction. That's how the tax system is set up and geared. Why is it suddenly that it should be waived "because it's my kids" when it is in effect a financial transaction.

Also, regardless of all of the above, I'm with Locke that you have the right to own property, not a right to get the property freely just because your daddy was rich. All these laws and taxes arose in direct response to the reality of the social contract we are all a part of, the main one being that wealth consolidation is a social ill, and the inheritance tax curbs it.

What a crock of shit. If people want to be taxed up the ass for mainly arbitrary reasons by politicians who don't do a fucking thing, fine. Not me. Inheritance tax curbs it, ha! Rape the rich to give to the poor, just do it. This is where liberals fail, they ain't got a Robin Hood.

Foo wrote:It should be noted, when you hear the horrible stories involving estate taxes, it is the family farms and small businesses. The super wealthy can avoid them easily with trusts and such.

Let me give a personal example. Let's say I have a child who is 18. I pass away in a battle with disease that dissolves my liquid assets. My child now owns Crave. Some assessor decides Crave is worth $1m because of revenues. My child must now sell Crave in order to pay the taxes or get a crippling loan.

Beyond the moral issues of taxing the child:

1. How much is losing my contribution impacting the value?
2. Who benefits in the long run when you take a running business paying taxes constantly and tear it apart to pay a one time tax?

But let's pretend you said Crave was worth $15M instead, and you and your wife both die thus going over the $10.8M threshold. So now they have a business worth $15M but no means to pay the tax on that $15M since that would be $1.7M in taxes. So they have to sell the business to pay for it.

1. I don't know, arguably loads, but then that is a matter for the actuary or the valuer to determine and take into account. If the business is worth more than the sum of its parts, then your input is worth whatever the value of your assets are, plus the goodwill of any calculated revenues, less your contribution. I'll go with $400k in pure "Foo"ness.

2. If it is sold, then no impact is had on the long run since a viable business is sold to someone intending to run it. Or it gets stripped out, but if you're so integral to the processs it was going to fail anyway.


And it all keeps working fine, since your kid had no reasonable expectation of $15M, and your kid can survive on the remnant $12M I just got him. So quit your whining.

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:It should be noted, when you hear the horrible stories involving estate taxes, it is the family farms and small businesses. The super wealthy can avoid them easily with trusts and such.

Let me give a personal example. Let's say I have a child who is 18. I pass away in a battle with disease that dissolves my liquid assets. My child now owns Crave. Some assessor decides Crave is worth $1m because of revenues. My child must now sell Crave in order to pay the taxes or get a crippling loan.

Beyond the moral issues of taxing the child:

1. How much is losing my contribution impacting the value?
2. Who benefits in the long run when you take a running business paying taxes constantly and tear it apart to pay a one time tax?

Then your child is being swindled, since the minimum value for the estate tax is $5.4M

Which could easily be a small business or a family farm.

The amount should not matter. It is wrong no matter the amount.

The amount does matter, as it precludes legitimately small businesses at that rate, and affects 0.2% of all Americans. So it's massively important where the threshold is set.

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:It should be noted, when you hear the horrible stories involving estate taxes, it is the family farms and small businesses. The super wealthy can avoid them easily with trusts and such.

Let me give a personal example. Let's say I have a child who is 18. I pass away in a battle with disease that dissolves my liquid assets. My child now owns Crave. Some assessor decides Crave is worth $1m because of revenues. My child must now sell Crave in order to pay the taxes or get a crippling loan.

Beyond the moral issues of taxing the child:

1. How much is losing my contribution impacting the value?
2. Who benefits in the long run when you take a running business paying taxes constantly and tear it apart to pay a one time tax?

Then your child is being swindled, since the minimum value for the estate tax is $5.4M

Which could easily be a small business or a family farm.

The amount should not matter. It is wrong no matter the amount.

The amount does matter, as it precludes legitimately small businesses at that rate, and affects 0.2% of all Americans. So it's massively important where the threshold is set.

Why is ok to punish the .2% of Americans to satisfy those who are jealous? This should not be an issue. It is a shame people have to attack the success of others.

Imagine if all the liberals spent as much time focused on bettering themselves instead of bring down others...

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:It should be noted, when you hear the horrible stories involving estate taxes, it is the family farms and small businesses. The super wealthy can avoid them easily with trusts and such.

Let me give a personal example. Let's say I have a child who is 18. I pass away in a battle with disease that dissolves my liquid assets. My child now owns Crave. Some assessor decides Crave is worth $1m because of revenues. My child must now sell Crave in order to pay the taxes or get a crippling loan.

Beyond the moral issues of taxing the child:

1. How much is losing my contribution impacting the value?
2. Who benefits in the long run when you take a running business paying taxes constantly and tear it apart to pay a one time tax?

Then your child is being swindled, since the minimum value for the estate tax is $5.4M

Which could easily be a small business or a family farm.

The amount should not matter. It is wrong no matter the amount.

The amount does matter, as it precludes legitimately small businesses at that rate, and affects 0.2% of all Americans. So it's massively important where the threshold is set.

Why is ok to punish the .2% of Americans to satisfy those who are jealous? This should not be an issue. It is a shame people have to attack the success of others.

It’s nothing to do with jealousy. It’s everything to do with avoiding a landed aristocracy.

Foo wrote:Imagine if all the liberals spent as much time focused on bettering themselves instead of bring down others...

Imagine if you had anything but platitudes and false analogies to bring to a discussion...

Foo wrote:Imagine if all the liberals spent as much time focused on bettering themselves instead of bring down others...

Oh sweetness. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3yCcXgbKrE

Reign in Blood wrote:

Foo wrote:Imagine if all the liberals spent as much time focused on bettering themselves instead of bring down others...

Oh sweetness. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3yCcXgbKrE

Beautiful!

Foo wrote:Imagine if all the liberals spent as much time focused on bettering themselves instead of bring down others...

Yup liberals are assholes. I just love me some conservative Jesus toast in the morning.

J-Mac slowly working his way to the good side.

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:It should be noted, when you hear the horrible stories involving estate taxes, it is the family farms and small businesses. The super wealthy can avoid them easily with trusts and such.

Let me give a personal example. Let's say I have a child who is 18. I pass away in a battle with disease that dissolves my liquid assets. My child now owns Crave. Some assessor decides Crave is worth $1m because of revenues. My child must now sell Crave in order to pay the taxes or get a crippling loan.

Beyond the moral issues of taxing the child:

1. How much is losing my contribution impacting the value?
2. Who benefits in the long run when you take a running business paying taxes constantly and tear it apart to pay a one time tax?

Then your child is being swindled, since the minimum value for the estate tax is $5.4M

Which could easily be a small business or a family farm.

The amount should not matter. It is wrong no matter the amount.

The amount does matter, as it precludes legitimately small businesses at that rate, and affects 0.2% of all Americans. So it's massively important where the threshold is set.

Why is ok to punish the .2% of Americans to satisfy those who are jealous? This should not be an issue. It is a shame people have to attack the success of others.

It’s nothing to do with jealousy. It’s everything to do with avoiding a landed aristocracy.

Not working in England, where a tiny minority owns most of the land despite high inheritance taxes. Why? Because you get wealthy in part by being smarter than the dipshits who decide to spend a lifetime in government to steal your money.